Application for special rate – whether application lodged prior to applicant turning 65 – s24(2A) applicable – whether applicant was engaged in “remunerative work” – whether Tribunal misconstrued “working…for a continuous period of at least 10 years” under s24(2A)(g) – whether Tribunal misconstrued “suffering a loss” under s24(2A)(e)

Claim for PTSD, alcohol dependence and hypertension – veteran found to have been the subject of abuse and bullying – where Tribunal erred in law in finding that veteran did not experience events that involved actual or threatened serious injury having regard to the bullying conduct.

Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicability of factor 6(a) of the Statement of Principles (SoP) for Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse – whether the Tribunal misconstrued s120 and /or the applicable SoP – whether the Tribunal adhered to the Deledio process for determining whether injury or disease war-caused under the Act.

Appeal from AAT – questions of law – whether Tribunal properly applied s119(g) or 119(h) of the VEA – whether Tribunal properly acquitted its obligation to give reasons pursuant to s43 of the AAT Act

Appeal from AAT – questions of law – no questions of law stated in notice of appeal – questions formulated in written submissions and argument

Whether the Tribunal erred in law because it made a finding that the applicant did not experience a stressor in the SoP otherwise than being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with stage four of Deledio.

Application for special rate – whether AAT erred in its construction of s24(2)(b) by requiring a “liberal and beneficial” approach to the extent and nature of the veteran’s war-caused injuries – whether AAT erred in determining that the veteran’s war-caused injuries were the “substantial cause” of his inability to obtain remunerative work.

Application for disability pension – whether depressive disorder is related to defence service – application of SoP – whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a category two stressor – where it was manifestly unreasonable for Tribunal to conclude there was no sufficient evidence.

Application for special rate – whether application lodged before applicant turned 65 – section24(2A) applicable - whether applicant was engaged in “remunerative work”– whether primary judge misconstrued “working…for a continuous period of at least 10 years”.

Reasonable hypothesis test – no relevant Statement of Principles – chronic irritable cough syndrome – exposure to insecticides